View Single Post
Posts: 337 | Thanked: 891 times | Joined on Jul 2012 @ Royaume Uni.
#136
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
I just don't see anybody examining this experience and saying: "We need to be more open! We need to get our OS onto more devices!" That just doesn't work. It'll be the opposite -- "We need to tie our software more closely to our hardware!" I mean, Apple certainly isn't hurting by following this strategy. I'm guessing Android itself will be slowly retreating, as more manufacturers switch to OSs built totally in-house...
The future is actually more bleak than that. I think people in mobile will be saying, "We've had Symbian, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone, Windows 10, Firefox OS, Blackberry 7, Meego, Blackberry 10, WebOS, Sailfish, Ubuntu, Tizen, Bada. We've had all these OS's and they've all been crushed and lost their owners billions of Dollars collectively". Instead of asking, "Do we need to be more open?", they'll probably be saying "If we get involved in another mobile OS, we're going to lose million of Dollars".

At this stage, it's impossible for any incumbent to come in and displace Google or Apple. Microsoft spent tens of billions of Dollars to try and promote Windows for mobiles and have gotten nowhere. Did Microsoft not try hard enough? Clearly they tried very hard. Did Microsoft spend the money necessary? Yes they did, big time. Did Microsoft try to bring developers on board? Yes, they spent a fortune on porting/community efforts. Did Microsoft find a good partner? Yes, they partnered with the best mobile phone maker out there (Nokia). Did Microsoft deliver a good OS? Yes, it's certainly no worse than Android/Ios. If Microsoft can fail with a pretty decent product and all their resources - there is no hope for smaller players.
 

The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to NokiaFanatic For This Useful Post: